Election Day, USA!

[Ian]

Decent speech from Romney, I must say. Good rhetoric about bipartisanship. I sincerely hope his Party of No takes heed and decides that compromise does not have to be taboo. But I'm cynical after the last few years.

Empty rhetoric. Republics claim they're trying to be bipartisan but the dems aren't playing ball.

Utter nonsense. Bush's signature legislative achievements (tax cuts, authorization for Iraq, NCLB, etc.) all had fair amounts of support from Democrats in Congress. COntrast that with Republicans during the Obama years, and it's clear who are the stonewallers.

I think you misunderstood me. I agree with you. I was just saying Mitt's rhetoric was empty. Just fodder for Republicans to keep on saying "we're trying".

I know you agree. I just wanted to elaborate because there are some conservatives here who like to pretend that the Democrats act just like Republicans. I call it False Balance; it's a very understandable defense mechanism for people.

[Ayaan]

I knew the election was over when I heard someone at work say that Fox News had just said Romney had lost.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm going to read all this when I get back from the hospital, but right now may I just say:

[klr]

The popular vote is meaningless afaik.. just something for the side that lost to use to salve their butthurt if it favours them.

If the Presidency were decided by a popular vote, then voting patterns would be quite different, perhaps radically so in some states.

FWIW, Obama will win the popular vote anyway once all the votes are in. If that ever happens ...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The popular vote is meaningless afaik.. just something for the side that lost to use to salve their butthurt if it favours them.

If the Presidency were decided by a popular vote, then voting patterns would be quite different, perhaps radically so in some states.

FWIW, Obama will win the popular vote anyway once all the votes are in. If that ever happens ...

The Electoral College has gone against the popular vote how many times?

[Svartalf]

You'd know that better than I... at least one.

[klr]

The popular vote is meaningless afaik.. just something for the side that lost to use to salve their butthurt if it favours them.

If the Presidency were decided by a popular vote, then voting patterns would be quite different, perhaps radically so in some states.

FWIW, Obama will win the popular vote anyway once all the votes are in. If that ever happens ...

The Electoral College has gone against the popular vote how many times?

Not very often. Anyway, even with "proportional" voting systems (such as in Ireland), it's still possible for someone to be elected at constituency or national level despite receiving a relatively low share of the votes. No system is perfect.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You'd know that better than I... at least one.

Faithlessness
Main article: Faithless elector
A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than the person pledged or does not vote for any person. 24 states have laws to punish faithless electors. In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While many only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact, states like Michigan also specify that the faithless elector's vote be voided.[43]
As electoral slates are typically chosen by the political party or the party's presidential nominee, electors usually have high loyalty to the party and its candidate: a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than criminal charges.
Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date. For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett-Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do. This was done as an act of protest against Washington, D.C.'s lack of congressional voting representation.[44] That elector's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... ed_States)

[Svartalf]

I had understood something different... the college going one way where the aggregated popular vote went the other, as opposed to electors not doing what they are supposed to do.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I had understood something different... the college going one way where the aggregated popular vote went the other, as opposed to electors not doing what they are supposed to do.

The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate,

The link has more information. I'm about to split, so you're on your own there.

[Coito ergo sum]

Congratulations to President Obama on being reelected.

I wish nothing but the best for the country, and now it is time to see where he intends to place the focus of his second term.

The people have spoken. Slightly more than half wanted Obama back in there, and the Electoral College voted for him by an inarguable margin. I am glad, at least, that we did not have a repeat of 2000, which would have been damaging.

By the looks of the EC, Romney wasted every penny he spent on this campaign. Paul Ryan was a mistake. And, I think that nobody's minds were changed from 2008. I doubt many people who voted for Obama in 08 changed their vote. I haven't seen stats on the independents, but clearly they could not have tipped all that handily toward Romney.

Anyway, good luck. And, please do the right things.

That is all.

[Tero]

Ryan represents today's republicans. Who would have won the race for Romney? No one.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ryan represents today's republicans. Who would have won the race for Romney? No one.

Chris Christie.

[laklak]

6 billions dollars. Enough hot air to raise sea levels by a meter. Empty rhetoric, absurd promises, probably a few divorces. For what? No Change. Obama is Prez, the Senate is democratic and the House is Republican. We could have just bypassed the whole annoying process and spent the money on beer. A minimum of two more years of partisan deadlock, joy joy happy happy.

[mistermack]

6 billions dollars. Enough hot air to raise sea levels by a meter. Empty rhetoric, absurd promises, probably a few divorces. For what? No Change. Obama is Prez, the Senate is democratic and the House is Republican. We could have just bypassed the whole annoying process and spent the money on beer. A minimum of two more years of partisan deadlock, joy joy happy happy.

That's the will of the people. They have spoken. "We want fuck-all to happen."
And election 2016 is beginning right now, for more of the same.